Slovenia

Prior to 2017, collective redress was not possible in Slovenia; only limited legal protection was available to consumers in the form of injunctive relief and declaratory relief to protect collective interests, pursuant to Directive 2009/22/EC. Slovenia introduced its collective actions regime with the adoption of the Collective Actions Act (Zakon o kolektivnih tožbah, hereinafter ZKolT) on 26 September 2017 (Zakon o kolektivnih tožbah [Collective Actions Act], Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia, No. 55/17, 133/23). The main purposes of the ZKolT are to:

• facilitate access to justice;
• stop and prevent unlawful practices; and
• enable injured parties to obtain redress in cases of collective damage resulting from violations of civil, commercial and labour law rights, whilst ensuring adequate procedural safeguards to prevent abusive litigation.

The legislator sought to strike a balance between protecting the interests of injured parties and safeguarding the rights of potential infringers against abusive litigation.

The ZKolT was substantially amended on 14 December 2023 (ZKolT-A) to transpose Directive (EU) 2020/1828 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2020 on representative actions for the protection of the collective interests of consumers, which replaced Directive 2009/22/EC (Directive 2020/1828, 2020 O.J. (L 409) 1 (EU)). The Directive aims to ensure that at least one effective procedural mechanism for representative actions for both injunctive relief and redress measures is available in all Member States, whilst providing appropriate safeguards against abusive litigation.

Despite the ZKolT’s entry into force in April 2018, utilisation of the collective actions mechanism remained dormant until 2021. Prior to the adoption of the ZKolT a Slovenian Consumers’ Association filed an injunctive class action against one of the Slovenian banks under the old regime. With the adoption of ZKolT this class action was requalified into a class action under ZKolT. In 2022 the judgment became final. Although this is considered a first-class action under ZKolT, it should be noted that in that case the court did not perform a certification phase, whereas on the merits the claimant only sought an injunctive relief. In 2018 and 2019 two other class actions were filed, both rejected at the certification stages.

The class action regime came to life with a class action filed in 2021 against a large U.S.-based multinational, as this was the first-ever class action for damages due to violations of consumer rights and was the first class action under which a potential class consists of tens of thousands of consumers. Activity additionally increased substantially in 2022, when 14 collective actions were filed against Slovenian banks, primarily concerning EURIBOR-related floor clauses. In 2023, four collective actions were filed against telecommunications operators. Most recently, in 2025, one collective action was filed against an electricity distribution company. All recent class actions pertain to alleged violations of consumer rights.

The current legal framework for collective actions in Slovenia is governed primarily by the ZKolT as amended by ZKolT-A. The Act establishes two principal types of collective actions: collective actions for damages (kolektivna odškodninska tožba) and collective actions for injunctive relief (kolektivna opustitvena tožba). The ZKolT also provides a framework for court-approved collective settlements (kolektivna poravnava).

The regime operates alongside individual civil litigation governed by the Civil Procedure Act (Zakon o pravdnem postopku, ZPP), whose provisions apply mutatis mutandis unless the ZKolT provides otherwise. However, the analogous application of the ZPP is not straightforward, as the ZPP offers more than one solution for procedural issues, and the mutatis mutandis approach requires different application where circumstances so require.

Jurisdiction over collective actions lies with district courts (okrožna sodišča) at the seat of the higher courts.

The ZKolT applies to collective actions in the following areas:

• consumer claims against undertakings for violations of consumer rights;
• claims arising from violations of competition law prohibitions under Articles 5 and 8 of the Slovenian Prevention of Restriction of Competition Act and Articles 101 and 102 Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU);
• claims relating to violations of trading rules on organised markets and prohibited market abuse conduct under financial instruments legislation;
• employment claims that may be pursued by individual action in labour disputes;
• liability claims arising from environmental disasters; and
• anti-discrimination matters (injunctive relief only).

Under the ZKolT, a collective damages action (kolektivna odškodninska tožba) is an action whereby a qualified person (upravičena oseba) claims compensation for the benefit of all persons harmed in a case of mass harm (primer množičnega oškodovanja), regardless of the legal characterisation of the claim (for example, damages, unjust enrichment or performance), where such persons are not parties to the proceedings.

A collective injunctive action (kolektivna opustitvena tožba) is an action whereby a qualified person seeks cessation of unlawful conduct.

Key concepts include the “group” (skupina) comprising all natural and legal persons who suffered harm in a case of mass harm and on whose behalf the collective action is brought; “collective damage” (kolektivna škoda) meaning the sum of individual losses suffered by group members arising from the same mass harm incident; and “aggregate compensation” (agregatna odškodnina) meaning the total monetary compensation awarded in a collective judgment or settlement.

The procedure for collective damages actions under the ZKolT comprises several distinct phases.

Filing requirements

In addition to elements required for any action, a collective action must contain 14 additional elements pertaining mostly to class definition and damages calculation. The claim must specify:

• description of mass harm;
• description of the group and subgroups;
• estimated number of group members;
• whether an opt-in or opt-out system is proposed;
• estimated total compensation;
• proposed method of calculating damages;
• proposed notification method; and
• information on costs and any third-party funding.

Importantly, the ZKolT distinguishes between “claims” and “proposals” (predlogi). The court is not bound by proposals regarding:

• choice of opt-in/opt-out system;
• notification method;
• calculation of damages; and
• conditions for assessing entitlement.

The court may decide differently from the claimant’s proposals and add elements not proposed. This represents an important deviation from ZPP Article 2 (court deciding within claim limits).

Certification

Following the filing, a certification phase begins. The court approves the collective damages action if:

• identical claims are asserted on behalf of an identifiable group concerning the same, similar or related factual or legal issues arising from the same mass harm;
• common legal and factual issues predominate over individual issues;
• the group is sufficiently numerous that individual litigation would be less efficient;
• the claimant satisfies representativeness requirements;
• the claim is not manifestly unfounded; and
• funding requirements are satisfied.

Notably, as of February 2026, no collective action has yet been certified. Certification proceedings have proven exceedingly lengthy, with courts appearing unfamiliar with the novel procedural requirements of the ZKolT and struggling to apply the certification criteria efficiently. This has resulted in significant delays at the pre-certification stage, with some cases pending for several years without progressing beyond certification hearings. The slow pace of certification may be attributed to several factors:

• lack of judicial experience with class actions;
• the complexity of the representativeness assessment;
• courts’ lack of experience with collective proceedings;
• the adversarial nature of certification hearings where defendants challenge multiple certification criteria simultaneously; and
• the fact that many aspects of collective proceedings remain underregulated in the statutory framework.

Post-certification

Upon certification, the court issues a certification decision, among others, defining the class, specifying the opt-in or opt-out mechanism, the notification period (30–90 days), setting the rules for communication activities, and the deadline for the defendant’s response (30–60 days).

Amendment of claims

Given the initial information asymmetry between claimant and defendant, and the staged nature of collective proceedings (resembling a “gradual” action under the ZPP), it is unlikely the claimant will have sufficient information at filing to precisely determine eligibility conditions and calculation methods. Commentators argue claimants should have effective possibilities to amend claims after certification, with greater flexibility than in individual litigation. An amendment or alteration of the claim in collective proceedings should be considered a privileged alteration as long as it remains within the scope of the initial claim regarding group size and definition. A contrary view would oppose the fundamental principle of effective access to justice.

Civil litigation in Slovenia is based on the “loser pays” principle, implemented to balance claimants’ access to justice with the need to minimise incentives for abusive litigation. As injured individuals are not parties to the proceedings, litigation costs are borne by the formal parties (the qualified entity and defendant), not by group members directly. Individual group members have no right to recover their own costs and are not liable for the opposing party’s costs, except for costs caused by their own fault.

Slovenia was among the first countries to enact regulation of third-party funding in collective proceedings through binding legislative acts. The ZKolT introduced the principle of transparency: the claimant must publicly disclose and report to the court the source of funds for the proceedings.

Third-party funding encompasses both third-party litigation funding (TPLF) stricto sensu (a non-recourse capital investment by a third party assuming all or part of litigation costs in exchange for payment upon success) and attorneys’ funding through conditional fees, contingency fees and alternative mechanisms.

Where third-party funding is used, the following conditions apply:

• no conflict of interest between the funder and claimant/group members;
• the funder may not finance actions against its competitors or parties on whom it depends;
• the funder must have sufficient resources to meet its financial obligations;
• the claimant must demonstrate sufficient funds or security to cover adverse costs; and
• the private third-party funder may not charge interest exceeding the statutory rate.

The funder may not decisively influence procedural decisions, including settlement decisions.

The original ZKolT did not define “third-party funding”, reducing legal certainty. The ZKolT-A amendments addressed this by defining third-party funding as providing funding for part or all of litigation costs in return for an agreed premium upon success, usually as a percentage of the court award or settlement.

Contingency fees are explicitly regulated. Attorneys may agree with the claimant on contingency fee remuneration not exceeding 15% of the court award, consistent with the Slovenian Attorneys Act. Contingency fees cover only attorneys’ fees, not reimbursement of other legal costs if the claim is unsuccessful. The original ZKolT also created a sui generis form of attorneys’ funding: where the attorney is willing to bear the full costs of proceedings if the claim fails, agreed fees may be increased up to 30% of the award if successful, effectively putting the attorney in the position of a third-party financier. The ZKolT abolished this sui generis arrangement and at the same time abolished also the 30% cap in cases where the attorney assumes risks pertaining to class action funding (reimbursement of costs to the defendant, paying other costs). ZKolT-A abolished the limitation of contingency fee and made it subject to the reasonableness assessment by the court.

To reduce cost-related risks and facilitate access to justice, the ZKolT sets the formal value of dispute lower than the actual economic value, directly reducing court fees. For collective damages actions, the value is set at 20% of the estimated total claims or 20% of the aggregate compensation claimed. For injunctive actions, the value may not exceed EUR 10,000 regardless of actual economic significance, whereas in setting the value the court must consider case complexity, importance to the defendant, collective rights and public interest.

There is no statutory timetable prescribed for collective actions, and the duration of proceedings varies considerably depending on the complexity of the case, number of class members and extent of evidentiary issues.

Experience to date suggests that certification proceedings alone may take substantially longer than initially anticipated. Since no collective action has yet been certified, the actual duration of post-certification merits proceedings remains untested. Based on the statutory framework and comparable civil litigation, the following stages can be anticipated upon certification:

• certification (18–36 months);
• opt-in/opt-out period and class formation (2–3 months);
• merits proceedings including evidence and hearings (12–24 months);
• first-instance judgment; and
• potential appeals (additional 12–18 months per appellate level).

The prolonged certification phase appears attributable to courts’ unfamiliarity with collective action procedures and the comprehensive evidentiary assessment required at the certification stage. The Higher Court of Ljubljana’s recent decision in case I Pk 1/2021 provided important guidance on the interpretation of certification requirements, particularly regarding the representativeness assessment and the threshold for demonstrating that common issues predominate over individual issues. This decision clarified that courts must conduct a rigorous but not overly restrictive assessment at the certification stage, balancing the need to prevent abusive litigation against the policy objective of facilitating access to justice for mass harm victims. It is to be expected that as the caselaw expands, at least the certification stage will shorten.

Overall, a collective action proceeding through to final judgment may take significantly longer than the three to five years originally anticipated, particularly given the protracted certification phase experienced to date.

In contrast to U.S.-style class actions, where an aggrieved individual files suit as a plaintiff representing a larger class, the Slovenian regime follows the European representative action model. Only eligible and representative entities (or public authorities) may bring actions on behalf of injured parties, who are not themselves parties to the proceedings.

Qualified persons for domestic actions

Standing to bring collective actions is restricted to:

• a legal person governed by private law, carrying on an “ungainful” (nepridobitna) activity and in which there is a direct link between its main aims and the rights allegedly infringed; and
• the State Attorney’s Office of the Republic of Slovenia (Državno odvetništvo Republike Slovenije).

The State Attorney’s Office may not bring actions where the Republic of Slovenia is the opposing party.

The standing of the State Attorney is linked to the public interest in ensuring no one is enriched by unlawful practices and the preventative effect of deterring future mass infringements. This alternative reinforces the primary role of other eligible entities, recognising that it is often unrealistic to expect injured individuals to bring individual litigation given the high costs and low remuneration.

Legal entity

Unlike U.S. class actions, the ZKolT does not allow an individual claimant to bring an action for the benefit of the entire class. While the ZKolT appears to exclude injured parties from directly bringing representative actions, they may form an ad hoc organisation, for example an association or society, which will then have standing.

Representativeness

A collective action is admissible only if filed by a qualified person that is “representative”. In deciding on the representativeness, the court relies on an unexhaustive list of criteria, namely whether the qualified person will be a suitable representative acting fairly, appropriately and in the best interests of group members, considering:

• independence and absence of influence from non-group members with economic interests;
• financial resources, human resources and legal expertise;
• awareness-raising activities regarding the violation;
• preparatory activities for the action;
• number of injured persons supporting its activities;
• media presence;
• potential conflicts between subgroups; and
• experience with collective claims.

The representativeness assessment has proven to be a significant hurdle in practice. In one of its most recent cases the Higher Court of Ljubljana provided guidance on interpreting these criteria, emphasising that representativeness must be assessed holistically rather than through rigid application of individual factors. The court indicated that the absence of one factor (such as prior experience with collective claims) should not be dispositive where other factors strongly support representativeness. This guidance is particularly important for newly established consumer organisations seeking to bring their first collective action.

Cross-border actions

For consumer collective actions, qualified entities designated by other EU Member States and listed by the European Commission may bring actions in Slovenia. Slovenia maintains a list of entities qualified to bring consumer collective actions in other Member States, administered by the ministry responsible for consumer protection. Directive 2020/1828 requires qualified entities for cross-border actions to demonstrate:

• legal personality with 12 months of public activity in consumer protection;
• legitimate interest corresponding to their statutory purpose;
• non-profit character;
• absence of insolvency;
• independence from persons with economic interests in the action; and
• transparency regarding funding, structure and activities.

The ZKolT provides for both opt-out (sistem izključitve) and opt-in (sistem vključitve) mechanisms, with the court free to decide (with some exceptions) which system to apply. Under the opt-out system, all injured persons are group members except those who declare they do not wish to be members. Under the opt-in system, only those who declare their wish to join become group members.

The court determines which system applies based on all circumstances, particularly individual claim values. However, the opt-in system is mandatory where: at least one claim involves non-pecuniary damages or at least 10% of group members claim amounts exceeding EUR 2,000. Persons without habitual residence or seat in Slovenia are always subject to opt-in.

Group members must submit declarations within the court-specified period (minimum 30 days, maximum 90 days). Late inclusion or exclusion requires defendant consent or court permission based on whether delay was the member’s fault and whether the defendant’s position would be materially prejudiced.

There is no statutory minimum for a class size. The court assesses whether the group is sufficiently numerous that collective action is more effective than numerous individual proceedings.

The court possesses substantial case management powers in collective actions:

• System selection. Determining whether the opt-in or opt-out mechanism applies.
• Notification. Specifying notification methods, including personal notification, media announcements or website publication, and assessing notification adequacy based on media coverage and the claimant’s notification activities.
• Security. Requiring the claimant to undertake additional notification activities or pay security for potential adverse costs as a condition for certification.
• Protection of group interests. The claimant must protect the interests of all group members. The court may permit acknowledgment of facts, withdrawal, amendment or waiver only if not contrary to group interests. If the claimant seriously violates group interests or is no longer representative, the court may order substitution with another qualified person.
• Settlement facilitation. If parties reach a settlement during proceedings, the collective settlement provisions apply, meaning that the court has to consent to such settlement (taking into account the interests of the represented persons).

There are no specific provisions in the ZKolT on the duty of parties to disclose documents. Slovenian civil procedure does not have a “discovery” or “disclosure” phase as in common law jurisdictions; disclosure pertains mostly to individual documents during trial. The duty arises only upon a court order based on a specific request, and the requesting party must specify:

• the document designation or type;
• the fact to be proved;
• a description (as precise as possible) of the document’s contents; and
• facts from which possession may be inferred.

Some argue that disclosure rules in collective litigation should resemble competition litigation more than general litigation, given the information asymmetry between claimants and defendants. In competition litigation (under Directive 2014/104), claimants can request more documents, need less precision in describing content, and need not designate the document form.

Directive 2020/1828 Article 18 obliges Member States to enact special disclosure rules for representative actions. The ZKolT-A introduced penalties for failure to comply with disclosure duties (new Article 9.a) but did not add specific provisions on disclosure conditions or scope, meaning courts must still apply ZPP Article 227 interpreted consistently with Article 18 of Directive 2020/1828. This creates legal uncertainty; Croatia and Ireland adopted more favourable solutions by directly transposing Article 18.

Funding disclosure

The claimant must publicly disclose funding sources and report them to the court. If the claimant proposes redaction of commercially sensitive portions, the court may permit this if not material to assessing funding conditions.

Group member information

The claim must include, where possible, a list of known group members with their last known addresses.

Injunctive relief

The court may order cessation of conduct seriously violating or threatening collective interests and prohibit similar conduct in the future. In consumer protection matters, injunctive actions may be brought against undertakings violating consumer rights through standard terms, form contracts, business methods, commercial practices or advertising. The court may also order publication of the judgment or corrective statements at the defendant’s expense.

Redress measures

Under Directive 2020/1828, redress measures oblige the trader to provide remedies including compensation, repair, replacement, price reduction, contract termination or reimbursement. The ZKolT provides for two methods of calculating damages:

• Individual assessment. Only when all group members are known and it is possible to adjudicate on individual claims without undue delay, the court may specify amounts for each member in the operative part of the judgment. This is the exception rather than the rule.
• Aggregate compensation. Where individual assessment is impractical (particularly in opt-out cases where group members may not be known at the time of ruling) the judgment sets out the mechanism through which group members who demonstrate they satisfy membership conditions will obtain compensation, with distribution through an administrator (upravitelj kolektivne odškodnine).

A collective settlement (kolektivna poravnava) is a written agreement for compensation of collective damage concluded between qualified persons and one or more persons undertaking payment obligations, submitted for court approval and effective only upon court confirmation. Proceedings commence upon joint application by the settlement parties.

The settlement must specify:

• description of mass harm;
• description of the group;
• estimated group size;
• whether opt-in or opt-out applies;
• aggregate compensation or categorised amounts;
• notification method;
• mechanism for determining entitlement to payment; and
• commitment to pay into a notary’s escrow account.

The court refuses confirmation if:

• the qualified person is not representative;
• compensation amounts are unreasonable;
• deadlines for claiming payment are manifestly unreasonable;
• costs exceed actual costs incurred;
• there is insufficient guarantee of full compensation;
• the settlement lacks an independent mechanism for verifying claims and out-of-court dispute resolution; or
• group members’ interests are insufficiently protected.

Before refusal, the court may allow parties to amend the settlement.

Upon confirmation, the court sets a period (30–90 days) for group members to opt in or opt out. Confirmed settlements bind all group members under the opt-out system (except those who opt out and non-residents who do not opt in), or those who opt in under the opt-in system.

Where individual compensation is awarded, the defendant pays out the injured parties based on the court judgment.

Where an aggregate compensation is awarded, the defendant must pay into a notary’s escrow account. The notary serves as administrator (upravitelj kolektivne odškodnine) responsible for verifying claims and distributing funds according to a mechanism for determining eligibility established in the judgment or settlement.

Group members must claim payment within the period specified in the judgment. If funds remain after the payment deadline (minimum one year), they are returned to the defendant. However, injured persons who demonstrate they could not claim within the deadline may subsequently claim from the returned funds.

Upon completion of all payment operations, the administrator prepares a final report listing all payments, which is submitted for court confirmation. The proceedings conclude upon issuance of the confirmation decision.

Final collective damages judgments bind group members who submitted opt-in declarations (opt-in system) or all group members except those who opted out within the specified period (opt-out system). Filing a collective injunctive action does not affect individuals’ rights to bring separate actions regarding the same conduct.

Where individual amounts are specified in the judgment, each group member may commence enforcement proceedings for their allocated amount. Where aggregate compensation is awarded, enforcement of payment into the escrow account may be sought by the claimant or administrator.

A final judgment upholding an injunctive claim binds other courts in subsequent individual proceedings regarding the established unlawfulness of the defendant’s conduct. If the court prohibits use of certain standard terms, this includes prohibition of reliance on such terms in already-concluded contracts.

The 2023 amendment (ZKolT-A) transposing Directive 2020/1828 introduced several changes:

• Changes to the standing requirements. It introduced some new criteria for assessing representativeness, including independence, resources and track record.
• Cross-border framework. New provisions for qualified entities to bring consumer collective actions in other EU Member States, with a maintained list of designated entities.
• Strengthened funding rules. Expanded and clarified the rules for disclosure and reasonableness of third-party funding arrangements.

Future policy development will likely focus on several pressing issues identified through the regime’s initial years of operation:

• Judicial capacity and expertise. The prolonged certification proceedings and absence of any certified collective action by February 2026 highlight the need for specialised judicial training and potentially dedicated collective actions courts or judges.
• Standing requirements. Consideration should be given to changing the “ungainful activity” requirement to “non-profit-making activity” with appropriate safeguards against abuse and potentially extending standing to natural persons without requiring establishment of a legal entity, following the U.S. class action model.
• Disclosure rules. Transposition of Article 18 of Directive 2020/1828 should define disclosure scope with greater precision, addressing existing gaps and ensuring a balanced approach accounting for information asymmetry in collective actions. Croatia and Ireland provide more favourable models.
• Determination of claims. The interplay between ZKolT requirements and general civil procedure rules on claim determination requires clarification, particularly regarding amendment of claims after certification.
• Interplay with individual litigation. The court’s certification decision depends significantly on the existence and outcomes of individual cases addressing the same subject matter. Successful individual actions can demonstrate claims are not manifestly unfounded; unsuccessful ones may indicate the opposite. Development of doctrines similar to collateral estoppel (issue preclusion) could enhance efficiency.
• Opt-in/opt-out balance. Evaluation of whether the mandatory opt-in requirement for higher-value claims adequately serves access to justice objectives.

Although it is encouraging that the field is developing (as evidenced by the ZKolT-A adoption) many aspects of collective proceedings remain unaddressed and underregulated. It would make sense to take advantage of this momentum to further regulate these issues through new amendments.